Besmira Celmeta v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BESMIRA CELMETA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71842
Agency No. A096-351-438
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Besmira Celmeta, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de
FILED
AUG 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71842 2
novo legal questions. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Celmeta’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Celmeta failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in Albania to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (material new evidence
must be qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the prior
proceeding); Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 1998) (the BIA
correctly concluded that petitioners evidence of renewed threats did not show new
circumstances).
We reject Celmeta’s contention that the BIA erred in relying on the
immigration judge’s original conclusions. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process
violation). We decline Celmeta’s request to remand for the agency to consider
Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71842 3
Finally, Celmeta’s request that the stay of removal and voluntary departure
remain in effect is moot in light of our November 2, 2010 order denying her
request for a stay of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Judge Berzon:
I would instruct, prior to issuing a decision on the merits, that the parties
confer with the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office regarding whether they wish to
engage in mediation.

-- 3 of 3 --